Thursday, December 21, 2006

On Good Intentions and Belittlement

This will likely be a two-parter, the second addressing (in a day or so) what 49er perceives to be a typical US attitude towards illegal immigration - and illegal immigrants. (Trust him, the two subjects are related).
For now, however, one can't help but observe once more a dichodomy between what most of the world expects in the way of societal behaviour from leaders of the US and what they accept from the secretariat of the UN. 49er holds that GWB and KA are almost universally held to significanty different standards of personal integrity and job performance.

If a fair-minded reader can't see at least a modicum of truth in that assertion, then all the linkage in the world will not improve on our mutual intercommunication and understanding. So I now bid those individual readers good-bye! You will benefit from nothing further here.

For the rest of us, however, IMHO there is something much more sinister at play here. For I consider that KA has been held to a much softer world-wide standard than GWB. And if that is true, then it almost certainly reflects a personal bias on the part of the viewer. Further, this has become a destructive bias that significantly lowers world-wide expectations of the retiring UN secretary general's job performance and leadership ability. A bias that in effect says, "We recognize that KA simply can't do as competent a job at the UN as we expect GWB to do in the US."

49er further maintains that most of the world doesn't support that point of view with 'evil intentions'. Instead, the universal world has encouragingly wished to frequently give KA the 'benefit of the doubt', even when faced with conflicting information. There is nothing "wrong" with this mindset, unless it repeatedly gives the object of attention a virtual "pass" on maintaining any objective level of personal integrity. Which it eventually has done.

49er regards the repeated good intentions of the liberal world toward Mr. Annan to have in effect belittled him, saying further, "Since you don't have the ability to do the same job, nor have the same integrity, as we expect of Mr. Bush, we will accept whatever you do as being 'OK'." And that, dear readers, is a deadly, deadly, and self-fulfilling bias.

Be honest about the double-standard, or in the interest of fairness eliminate it. The leader of the UN should be held to the same standards as the leader of the US, or any other nation. IMO.

Cheers btw, Nothing here is intended to be defending the record of GWB.

powered by performancing firefox

1 comment:

Stephen (aka Q) said...

Whether KA is held to a softer standard, I don't know — I suppose he is, by ideological left-wingers. But who could possibly succeed in getting countries like Russia, China, France, Germany, Libya, England and the USA to act with one accord?

I don't think it's KA's fault that every nation has its own set of interests and pursues its own agenda. The UN is a lovely idea in principle but, in practice, Jesus himself couldn't elicit a consensus from that disparate bunch.